GIMME HEAD...Bernard or Holyfield???...

Why are you still following me?

Roy was the BEST fighter Borenard Hopkins ever faced at middleweight and he got his ass kicked clearly 10-2, 9-3.

Speaking of idiots, aren't you the one who said "Cheating is okay if you get away with it" ?

Idiot indeed.

 

Yes he does it with Roy a lot, and Roy is the one who kicked his heroes ass with one hand.

 

Really?


I will apologize to you and Roy Jones if you can show me one single thread in which I ever diminished Roy's resume by slamming the people he DID fight..

I am the first to slam Roy Jones for the people he DID NOT fight, but not those he fought..

Prove otherwise and I will take it back...

 

I think you've made it crystal clear which one of us lacks boxing knowledge..

Still waiting for your Hagler list.. How many times do I have to ask for it?

:laughing: :laughing: :laughing:

 

hopkins is most overated fighter he only fought bums

 

Bama man, is Qwerty your alias? 2 pac fans that have the same opinion of Hopkins... That's suspicious....

 

apparently we've watched two different fights. i saw hopkins winning five rounds. at worst I thought he won 4. your 10-2 scorecard indicates that either youre pulling shit out of your butt again or you've never seen the fight.

 

Name the 5 rounds that Hopkins won, and we'll see who is full of shit.

You also have an unhealthy fixation on asses, keep that to the TAA section.

 

I don't think Hopkins fought only "bums" but I question his heralding as one of the All-Time Great middleweights.

You don't have to agree with me.

Just don't follow me around the board like Joony has chosen to. :clap:

 

Now we're getting somewhere..

If you don't consider Hopkins an All-Time Great MW then please share your Top 10 All-Time Greatest MW's..

 

So the same guy who lives and dies by the judges in the Hopkins-Taylor fights also happens to disagree with the judges in the Jones-Hopkins fight?

The same guy who dismisses Hopkins' win over Glen Johnson because Johnson was raw praises Roy's win over Hopkins which took place in 1993?


Selective reasoning?

 

this bama bum likes to draw attention to himself. i'll continue to bash on his thoughtless posts, but i'll refrain from any further arguments with this clown.

 

The judges had Roy winning like 8 rounds, I said I could see it 9-3, that's a one round difference. :dunno:

As for Hopkins being RAW, we've gone through this already. The dude was like 28 and had 23 fights when Roy schooled him. I also never dismissed Hopkins win over Johnson, I listed it as one of his TOP 5 best victories. Why are you purposefully being a shithead and ignoring that?

 

aka, "I'll follow him around because he made me look stupid."

As for thoughtless post, I don't think it gets anymore thoughtless than:

 

And the one round difference that would have changed the taylor fight means nothing?

EDIT: You never listed it as one of his 5 best victories. You commented on it.

Was Chavez not green in his 28th fight against a cab driver?

 

Actually I never listed it here. I listed it at Boxrec.

Borenard gave away the first half of the fight by being inactive against Taylor. Why are you still crying about it? It was a close fight that Borenard lost. Get over it.

Roy versus Borenard wasn't CLOSE by any means. That was a 4 round spread, it's nothing like Borenard - Taylor. What a shitty parallel.

As for Chavez, he fought more elite fighters over more weight classes than Borenard did. :clap:

 

I'm not crying about anything. I'm just pointing out that you agree with the refs when it supports your arguement and you disregard their scores when it doesn't support your arguement. That's all.


But was Chavez a seasoned pro by his 28th fight?

 

No you're not.

You're comparing a fight that may have been decided by ONE round to a fight where the judges had a 4 round spread. I agree with the judges in BOTH circumstances. :dunno:

 

Not according to your post you dont.

 

Waiting...

 

The PROBLEM Is,EVERY Fighter has a LIST of Opponents they DIDN'T Fight,yet NOBODY Else is Raked Over the Coals for it to the Degree that Roy is...

Bernard NEVER Fought Gerald McClellan,Julian Jackson,Michael Nunn,James Toney & a SHITLOAD of Other MEANINGFUL Names...Do YOU Hold those Names AGAINST Bernard like U Hold Roy's Against HIM???...

What's Funny is EVERY SINGLE ONE of those Names were Middleweights WHEN Bernard was a Middleweight AND ALL of them were Naturally BIGGER than the BEST Guys on Bernard's Resume...


REED

 

bernard was a nobody then and no one cared to see him fight any of those guys you mentioned. roy was already a big name in the mid 90s and fans wanted to see him fight the likes of those u mentioned.

bernard is 42, still fighting and beating top guys.

unlike roy, there's no should've or could've w/ hopkins.

 

BULLSHIT...

AFTER Roy Fought Bernard,Julian Jackson AND McClellan were STILL Viable Options...Not to Mention Toney & Michael Nunn...If Bernard DIDN'T Fight them HE DIDN'T FIGHT THEM,Period...Afford Roy the SAME Luxury of "Excuses",like YOU'RE Using...

That's NO Different than BLAMING Roy Cause Nigel Benn FLAT OUT REFUSED to Face Roy,or Blaming Roy Cause Steve Collins,Chris Eubank AND Frankie Liles ALL Turned Down CAREER HIGH PURSES to Face Roy...Or BLAMING Roy Cause MichalSHITski REFUSED to EVER Fight on American Soil...

Being "Nobody" Doesn't Mean SHIT...If ANYTHING,Bernard can B Accused of MILKING a WEAK Ass Division (even WEAKER than Cats Accuse 175 of Being,when Roy was there)...

If Not for a Natural WELTERWEIGHT Named Tito,Bernard would have NEVER had a Fight BIGGER than his Bout w/Roy...

N that Sense,U Could Say that he's More FORTUNATE than "Great"....

The PROBLEM REED Has is,EVERY SINGLE Bernard Lover has a PROBLEM w/Roy....CLEARLY,MOST of Ya'll BECAME Fans of Bernard BECAUSE Roy Pissed U Off N Some Fashion...But NOW,YOU SAME Cats wanna OVERLOOK Instances where Bernard has Done SIMILAR Shit to what YA"LL Accuse Roy of Doing...

Bernard MOST DEFINITELY has a "Should've,Could've" List...



REED

 

Exactly. Borenard was NOBODY until Tito decided to jump up to push the Middleweight tournament. Up until then Borenard didn't have a single name on his resume that people outside of boxing circles could name off the top of their head with MAYBE the exception of Roy who beat his ass clearly.

 

Holyfield.

 

The one difference I can see that would make this the case (and I'll admit I have done it) is because Roy looked so spectacular when fighting and had a very rabid fan base proclaiming how great he was. If you look great and act great then people want to see you excel and push yourself, nothing is more frustrating than seeing a great talent "coast". When you get this sort of sentiment it just magnifies the "woulda shoulda's". At least that's how I thought about it.

Every fighter has people they could have or should have fought...that's a given.

 

REED Can't DISagree w/this Post @ All...

N ALOT of Ways,Roy's Talent Level was his CURSE...

Like U Said,BECAUSE of Roy's Talent,U Could SEE when he was Giving LESS than 100% of Himself..."COASTING",as U Called it...The McCallum Fight,the 1st 4-5 Rounds Against Griffin,the Latter Half of the Reggie Johnson Fight...& it IRKED REED like it Did NON Hardcore Roy Fans,Believe it or Not...

But even Ray Robinson WASN'T Spectacular N Every Single Fight:nono: ...

Roy's TALENT Also CURSED him N 2 Being ARROGANT Enough to Think he Could Move Up & Down N Weight N his Mid 30's...Shit,the Fact that Tarver DARED to Shit Talk Roy @ a Press Conference is THE ONLY Reason they Ended Up Fighting...& the Fact that Tarver DARED to Give Roy a CLOSE Fight is the Only Reason the RE Happened...

N Hindsight,Roy SHOULD have just Accepted the Close Win & Moved Back to Heavy,but his TALENT/ARROGANCE Wouldn't Allow him to just SIT on a Close Win...

Live by the Sword,DIE by the Sword...That Quote Aptly Describes Roy Jones & his Level of Talent...

But it Seems like Roy Naysayers Hold his Talent AGAINST Him,which Isn't Fair @ All...As if ALL Roy had was JUST Talent or as if "Talent" Can B Purchased @ the Local Grocery Store...


REED

 

Those same people will also forgive that Hopkins will use his head like a rhino and then claim "He got away with it and won!" As if getting away with cheating is okay as long as someone wins the fight.

 

Hes giving his best impersonation of I & I.

 

To answer the question: from what I've seen, Holyfield has reckless abandon when he wants to use it, while Hopkins has a calculated risk system; in both cases, it often results in them leading with their head, and we cry foul about it. But obviously they're not lost without it otherwise they would've been defeated easily long ago. As if using angles on a guy is smehow taboo (last I checked, neither guy was so blatant or stupid as to turn their head and tilt it, because that could result in their own brutal neck injury). It's a part of their arsenal, and any trainer (or the fighter, if the corner is too dense to deal with it) should have a gameplan to deal with it.


The rest of the tangent in this thread is absolutely ridiculous. I don't understand the point of denigrating Hopkins, or Jones, or Holyfield, at this point in any of their careers. Sure we can still discuss their overall accomplihments and the inconsistencies etc. But the idea that Hopkins isn't one of the best of his era? What the hell is the POINT of saying that?
I honestly think that kind of bashing hurts the sport long term, because some gullible people who look to fans for info may run into this and take it at face value. I hope that's not the case.